Here are some things about evolution i never could understand, so if you are an evolutionist please feel free to answer:

1. If evolution is true, why is man not evolving now?

2. Evolution says we evolve, so what are we ment to turn into physically next?

3. The theory of evolution states we evolved from smaller things, evolutionists say we originally were tiny in size, as small as bread crumbs and even smaller pieces of bacteria. Imagine that, this is what evolutionists believe your ancestor was:

-------------------------------> .

In case you don't see it, it's the dot (next to arrow). Evolutionists believe we started in lifeform smaller than this dot (Seriously, anyone who believes this should be locked up in a mental institution!). But my point is what came before the dot? So the dot just randomly appeared?

Here are some things about evolution i never could understand, so if you are an evolutionist please feel free to answer:

1. If evolution is true, why is man not evolving now?

2. Evolution says we evolve, so what are we ment to turn into physically next?

3. The theory of evolution states we evolved from smaller things, evolutionists say we originally were tiny in size, as small as bread crumbs and even smaller pieces of bacteria. Imagine that, this is what evolutionists believe your ancestor was:

Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â -------------------------------> .

In case you don't see it, it's the dot (next to arrow). Evolutionists believe we started in lifeform smaller than this dot (Seriously, anyone who believes this should be locked up in a mental institution!). But my point is what came before the dot? So the dot just randomly appeared?

4. How does evolution explain the conscience?

Those are my four main point, anyone free free to give me an answer.

Whilst I am not an evolutionist, I'll attempt to answer your questions

1. The most common response I hear is that it takes millions of years, so we won't see the time changes in our lifetime...

2. Not sure.. Good question... Though you'd probably get fobbed off on this one

3. This is dealt with in the abiogenesis thread. Atheistic evolutionists believe that the dot "magically" appeared, whereas theistic evolutionists believe that God did evolution.

4. It can't. Evolution is a scientific theory and therefore is limited to the scope of science which is the observable, (which doesn't include evolution itself by the way ). However another good question from this is how did the conscience "evolve"? Truth be told, we barely understand the mechanics of the brain and the human phyche, so there is no answer, (that I know of) to this question... However you have raised a valid point since evolution must make an account for this

(Sorry If I am hyjacking the thread with this other point!!) Something that can also be asked when comparing human evolution is if humans have been around for 100,000 years.... They why is recorded human history only around 4000 years old?

Thank you for those answers, i enjoyed reading those because you made sensible sense. When you said this:

''The most common response I hear is that it takes millions of years, so we won't see the time changes in our lifetime''

All i can add is, that this highlights what we creationists have always said from the start: the scientific method which is based on observation can not deal with unobervable things, certinaly not a massive unobservable million year period.

Evolution just isn't science. See my signiture.

Also the last point you raised, is a logical point i usually do, evolutionists have no answer! They only come up with something silly about agriculture forced civilization to occur or some other unprovable silly theory.

Thank you for those answers, i enjoyed reading those because you made sensible sense. When you said this:

''The most common response I hear is that it takes millions of years, so we won't see the time changes in our lifetime''

All i can add is, that this highlights what we creationists have always said from the start: the scientific method which is based on observation can not deal with unobervable things, certinaly not a massive unobservable million year period.

Evolution just isn't science. See my signiture.

Also the last point you raised, is a logical point i usually do, evolutionists have no answer! They only come up with something silly about agriculture forced civilization to occur or some other unprovable silly theory.

Here are some things about evolution i never could understand, so if you are an evolutionist please feel free to answer:

1. If evolution is true, why is man not evolving now?

For the same reason there is no empirical evidence that we have been anything other than what we are now Cassiterides; itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s because macro-evolution is pure speculation, and nothing more. And when macro-evolution is defended dogmatically (i.e. as if it were a fact, then it is akin to a religion as well, because it is totally faith based).

The bigger question is; since it is merely speculative, why is the religion of macro-evolution taught in our public schools as if it were fact. Is this not an anathema to the supposed Ã¢â‚¬Å“separation of church and stateÃ¢â‚¬Â?

2. Evolution says we evolve, so what are we ment to turn into physically next?

See the answer to question one above.

3. The theory of evolution states we evolved from smaller things, evolutionists say we originally were tiny in size, as small as bread crumbs and even smaller pieces of bacteria. Imagine that, this is what evolutionists believe your ancestor was:

-------------------------------> .

In case you don't see it, it's the dot (next to arrow). Evolutionists believe we started in lifeform smaller than this dot (Seriously, anyone who believes this should be locked up in a mental institution!). But my point is what came before the dot? So the dot just randomly appeared?

Again, see number one above.

4. How does evolution explain the conscience?

It does not. Neither does it explain the Laws of Logic, Love, the laws of Mathematics or any other abstract phenomena.

Hi gilbo, thanks for the well thought out responses. I hope you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mind if I add a little to your posting. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll attempt to be concise, and not step on it too much:

1. The most common response I hear is that it takes millions of years, so we won't see the time changes in our lifetime...

This is a logical fallacy known as the Argumentum ad Futuris. It is basically pleading for you to Ã¢â‚¬Å“Accept this because future evidence will support it.Ã¢â‚¬Â It is not evidence, but more of a prayer.

2. Not sure.. Good question... Though you'd probably get fobbed off on this one

See the answer to one above.

3. This is dealt with in the abiogenesis thread. Atheistic evolutionists believe that the dot "magically" appeared, whereas theistic evolutionists believe that God did evolution.

True, and well put.

4. It can't. Evolution is a scientific theory and therefore is limited to the scope of science which is the observable, (which doesn't include evolution itself by the way ). However another good question from this is how did the conscience "evolve"? Truth be told, we barely understand the mechanics of the brain and the human phyche, so there is no answer, (that I know of) to this question... However you have raised a valid point since evolution must make an account for this

Macro-evolution (which Cassiterides was dealing with here, not micro-evolution) isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even a real theory; itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s more of a model or hypothesis, because it has absolutely no evidential foundation. The fact that it is promulgated by some as a Ã¢â‚¬Å“FACTÃ¢â‚¬Â moves it into the religious realm.

Something that can also be asked when comparing human evolution is if humans have been around for 100,000 years.... They why is recorded human history only around 4000 years old?

Hi gilbo, thanks for the well thought out responses. I hope you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mind if I add a little to your posting. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll attempt to be concise, and not step on it too much:This is a logical fallacy known as the Argumentum ad Futuris. It is basically pleading for you to Ã¢â‚¬Å“Accept this because future evidence will support it.Ã¢â‚¬Â It is not evidence, but more of a prayer. See the answer to one above. True, and well put. Macro-evolution (which Cassiterides was dealing with here, not micro-evolution) isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even a real theory; itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s more of a model or hypothesis, because it has absolutely no evidential foundation. The fact that it is promulgated by some as a Ã¢â‚¬Å“FACTÃ¢â‚¬Â moves it into the religious realm. Another good point gilbo... It doesn't make much sense, does it.

We are - selective pressures favour some endogenous variants over others so our gene pool is changing.

2. Evolution says we evolve, so what are we ment to turn into physically next?

This would depend on which new traits emerge and what selective pressures are at play.

3. The theory of evolution states we evolved from smaller things, evolutionists say we originally were tiny in size, as small as bread crumbs and even smaller pieces of bacteria. Imagine that, this is what evolutionists believe your ancestor was:

-------------------------------> .

In case you don't see it, it's the dot (next to arrow). Evolutionists believe we started in lifeform smaller than this dot (Seriously, anyone who believes this should be locked up in a mental institution!). But my point is what came before the dot?So the dot just randomly appeared?

Yes. Molecules naturally form from simpler components and break up due to the influence of the environment. The emergence of a molecule that could act as a template for its own self-replication is improbable but it need only happen once.

Seriously, anyone who believes this should be locked up in a mental institution!

Why?

4. How does evolution explain the conscience?

Sensory systems have an obvious adaptive advantage and a central nervous system provides further integration. As we became more aware of our own awareness as a factor in our decision making we became more conscious.

We are - selective pressures favour some endogenous variants over others so our gene pool is changing.

Cassiterides is speaking of macro-evolution. There is no empirical evidence for macro-evolution, therefore we are not. Further; your Ã¢â‚¬Å“we areÃ¢â‚¬Â statement then, is based on presupposition.

This would depend on which new traits emerge and what selective pressures are at play.

Again; based purely on presupposition.

Yes. Molecules naturally form from simpler components and break up due to the influence of the environment. The emergence of a molecule that could act as a template for its own self-replication is improbable but it need only happen once.

No, there is no empirical evidence of molecules Ã¢â‚¬Å“macro-evolvingÃ¢â‚¬Â into anything else. Everything we see is already formed from molecules, as if designed that way. Otherwise you could simply take some molecules and build life from them.

Why?

On this I agree. There is no reason to make such statements Cassiterides. It is not polite, nor is it fitting in the decorum of civilized debate.

Sensory systems have an obvious adaptive advantage and a central nervous system provides further integration. As we became more aware of our own awareness as a factor in our decision making we became more conscious.

There is absolutely Ã¢â‚¬Å“NOÃ¢â‚¬Â empirical evidence that we have not Ã¢â‚¬Å“alwaysÃ¢â‚¬Â had a conscience, or any other abstract phenomena (such as love, hate, thoughts, jealousy, etcetera.. etcetera...). In other words, we have always been conscience of our conscience.

No, there is no empirical evidence of molecules Ã¢â‚¬Å“macro-evolvingÃ¢â‚¬Â into anything else. Everything we see is already formed from molecules, as if designed that way. Otherwise you could simply take some molecules and build life from them.

Good point!

On this I agree. There is no reason to make such statements Cassiterides. It is not polite, nor is it fitting in the decorum of civilized debate.

I believe evolution is the science ''so falsely called'' as found described in the Bible. People who founded the theory of evolution were all atheist crackpots and conmen: Darwin, Lyell, Hutton etc none had a degree or even had any training in science, they also were motivated just to attack the Bible.

Sorry but i won't change my mind on this. Evolution is a fairytale, and grown men who believe in fairy tales belong in mental institutions with all the other nutjobs.

Sorry but i won't change my mind on this. Evolution is a fairytale, and grown men who believe in fairy tales belong in mental institutions with all the other nutjobs.

Regardless of how you feel, interacting with others here is:

1- a privilege

2- should be done respectfully

Attacking the person or persons is wrong. Exposing that which is not logical, rational, or scientific, and correcting it, is a different matter altogether. I would suggest ceasing the name calling, and continue with the good arguments.

And I agree with Ron. It is not Christ like to make fun of people whom believe differently from you. How do you expect to reach them for Christ when at the same time you piss them off with disrespecting remarks?

You may make yourself look better in a debate by doing that, but God is more interested in winning souls for the kingdom. Every time you make a bad representation of Christ, you not only mess up your chance to bring someone to Christ. But it effects the forum ministry as a whole to bring others to Christ.

In other words you don't know? You guys don't even know the outcome of your own theory? Odd indeed.

We know that in a compertivie environment more adaptive traits will be selected in favour of those less adaptive leading to change in the gene pool. More specific details regarding the future rely on numerous variables and cannot be known.

Because you guys believe your ancestors were the size as this ----> .

The dot.

What scientific evidence do you have we came from the size of a dot?

The fused zygote from which you yourself first developed was about the size of that dot. The phylogenetic tree of genetic relatedness demonstrates common lineage from primitive bacteria, archea and eucaryota (organisms observed to be far smaller than this now notorious dot).

We know that in a compertivie environment more adaptive traits will be selected in favour of those less adaptive leading to change in the gene pool. More specific details regarding the future rely on numerous variables and cannot be known.

The fused zygote from which you yourself first developed was about the size of that dot. The phylogenetic tree of genetic relatedness demonstrates common lineage from primitive bacteria, archea and eucaryota (organisms observed to be far smaller than this now notorious dot).

Yes adaptive traits are selected for, however what we see is still based solely on the template of the orignial DNA... This is to say that while the code may deviate to give different traits, (such as size / colour), these traits are not so deviant to make the organism become a new / different species... Such observation is just variation which can be seen, to account for the differering breeds of a species

I can see how the zygote proposition can be used as an analogy for evolution, however we must keep in mind that the zygote of any organism contains the code that brings about its development. Evolution proposes this same transition, (over millions of years), without the code being accounted for...

How can an organism develop beyond what it was coded to do? As I stated before what we observe as "evolution" is actually variation of the species into its sub groups of breeds... Yet still conforming to the general specifics of its DNA.

Another way to look at this is the supposed transition of single cellular organisms to multicellular. How did such a transition occur? I am sure scientists over the years have seen many millions / trillions of generations of bacteria, (PCR technique ), yet a transition has never been observed.... All we see is a DNA code being copied, (with some errors we must admit )... Why? Because that is what DNA is designed to do, copy itself to preserve the integrity of its kind.. (The PCR technique relies on this concept)

Another way to look at this is the supposed transition of single cellular organisms to multicellular. How did such a transition occur? I am sure scientists over the years have seen many millions / trillions of generations of bacteria, (PCR technique ), yet a transition has never been observed.... All we see is a DNA code being copied, (with some errors we must admit )... Why? Because that is what DNA is designed to do, copy itself to preserve the integrity of its kind.. (The PCR technique relies on this concept)

I hope I haven't confused you with my babble

Wow, an agnostic with engineering sense. DNA is made to copy itself--with crossover of course.

Yes there are mistakes, and most of them are detrimental. The others like nylonase in bacteria are open ended reading frames (that is no promotor) which gives possibility for a mechanism of designed variation for the purpose of adaptation. Of course that's not the only source of beneficial mutation but I think nylonase is the best example of true variation and adaptability in a species or kind.

Here are some things about evolution i never could understand, so if you are an evolutionist please feel free to answer...

4. How does evolution explain the conscience?

I don't think evolutionists have an explanation except to blame religious people and the Bible for the feeling of guilt. Either that or they say our understanding of the brain is very limited. Or that doing good (i.e. order in species) is conducive to natural selection.

However this is caused by their commitment to a naturalistic explanation for all things. But the conscience is an unobservable reality. It contradicts the assumptions of naturalism--that logical reasonable explanations define everything. The conscience is predictable in every child, and it operates the way scripture says it does. It can be seared and hardened by constant denial of it's influence. When a population has a mass hardening of conscience you will see more and more lawlessness and break down of order in society.

Yes adaptive traits are selected for, however what we see is still based solely on the template of the orignial DNA... This is to say that while the code may deviate to give different traits, (such as size / colour), these traits are not so deviant to make the organism become a new / different species... Such observation is just variation which can be seen, to account for the differering breeds of a species

The difference between breeds and species is the question of gene flow. Domestic dogs are one species as theoretically there can be gene flow across the spectrum - i.e. although a dachsund couldn't breed with a great dane it might breed with a beagle which then bred with a spaniel...and so on up to the big guy. If, hypothetically, a reasonable population of dachsunds were marooned on an island then their gene pool would become ever more exotic to that of other dogs and the likelihood of subsequent successful breeding with even similar sized dogs would decrease. If speciation becomes complete then any DNA similarity with their cousin "dogs" would be irrelevant - they might as well try breeding with an Iguana!

The difference between breeds and species is the question of gene flow.Ã‚Â Domestic dogs are one species as theoretically there can be gene flow across the spectrum - i.e. although a dachsund couldn't breed with a great dane it might breed with a beagle which then bred with a spaniel...and so on up to the big guy.Ã‚Â If, hypothetically, a reasonable population of dachsunds were marooned on an island then their gene pool would become ever more exotic to that of other dogs and the likelihood of subsequent successful breeding with even similar sized dogs would decrease.Ã‚Â If speciation becomes complete then any DNA similarity with their cousin "dogs" would be irrelevant - they might as well try breeding with an Iguana!

Two key points from this post:"hypothetically" - so it doesn't really matter, it's just imagined."dogs"; different types of "dogs" - they're still dogs!

The difference between breeds and species is the question of gene flow. Domestic dogs are one species as theoretically there can be gene flow across the spectrum - i.e. although a dachsund couldn't breed with a great dane it might breed with a beagle which then bred with a spaniel...and so on up to the big guy. If, hypothetically, a reasonable population of dachsunds were marooned on an island then their gene pool would become ever more exotic to that of other dogs and the likelihood of subsequent successful breeding with even similar sized dogs would decrease. If speciation becomes complete then any DNA similarity with their cousin "dogs" would be irrelevant - they might as well try breeding with an Iguana!